Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 SO2D 1369 - State v. See

State v. See’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Sepulvado · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 398 So. 2d 1049 - State v. Jones · 424 So. 2d 1009 - State v. Quebedeaux · 374 So. 2d 1195 - State v. Spencer

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"... The trial judge need not state for the record his consideration of each of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances enumerated in the article. However, the record must reflect that the judge did consider these guidelines in particularizing the sentence to the defendant. State v. Quebedeaux, 424 So. 2d 1009 (La.1982). The record should reflect that the trial court considered not only the seriousness of the crime and the defendant's criminal history, but also the defendant's personal history (age, mental status, dependents, family ties, employment record, emotional and physical health), and his potential for rehabilitation. State v. Quebedeaux, supra; State v. Jones, 398 So.2d 1049 (La.1981). The judge should indicate that he considered not only the factors militating for incarceration, but also any factor mitigating against it. State v. Ray, 423 So.2d 1116 (La.1982)."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.